Court upholds firing of porn star cop. "His activities were simply vulgar and indecent." - Fernandez

[Roland99]

Court upholds firing of porn star cop
Judges say starring in sex videos with wife disrespected department

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20626975/

Updated: 3:53 p.m. ET Sept 6, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - An Arizona police department had the right to fire a police officer who made and sold "vulgar and indecent" sex videos in which he performs with his wife, a U.S. appeals court ruled.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that Ronald Dible had engaged in "sleazy activities" and ruled that a lower court had properly dismissed Dible's claims that the Chandler, Arizona, police department infringed his First Amendment rights to free speech by firing him.

Dible lost his job in 2002 after the Chandler police department learned he was running a sexually explicit Web site featuring him and wife, Megan, which they operated to make money.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"We have not yet abandoned our social codes to the point that a city can be sanctioned for violating a police officer's First Amendment rights when he causes disrespect of the police department and its members by performing in and purveying pictures of his and his wife's sexually explicit activities over the Internet," Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wrote for a three-judge panel.

Interesting stuff on Fernandez:

http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/fernandz.htm


And digging from that last link in the last comment about Judge Fernandez:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040101060202/www.leswhaley.org/case.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040107050951/www.leswhaley.org/Justice_Denied.html


Fernandez re: Michael Newdow's case to have "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/27/MN67763.DTL

Dissenting Judge Ferdinand Fernandez accused the majority of elevating someone's hurt feelings into a constitutional violation.

"Some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases (such as 'under God') recited in their presence, but (the Constitution) is not primarily a feel-good prescription," said Fernandez, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

Such phrases "have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise, or nonexercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity," Fernandez said. By the same reasoning, he said, "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" will soon be banned on public occasions.

Judge Fernandez is an appointee from our sitting (on his ass) President.

Another pseudo-Christian activist judge trying to make sure America stays a "Christian" nation, esp. in the federal government.

I can't stand hypocritical, anti-Constitution, pseudo-Christian pricks.

Porn may be considered indecent by some but it's still legal in every state. And how would those actions affect his on-the-job performance? They don't.

A completely ridiculous ruling.

[Gman]

1. Due to the info about Fernandez above

Dible may want to appeal to the full court.

[Roland99]

5. Considering the makeup of SCOTUS, I doubt he'd find much success.

[Hissyspit]

2. Whose social codes, asshole?

What an amazingly stupid thing to write in a ruling.

[charlie]

3. Almost-Supreme-Court-Justice Fernandez

...Thomas praised and quoted from the dissenting opinion of Judge Fernandez. Back during the administration of the elder President Bush, advisors to the President placed Fernandez on a short list of candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. However, Justices Souter and Thomas received the appointments for the two open seats in that administration.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2006/20060228.asp

Think of where we'd be today if Poppy had opted for him, instead of Souter.

[ewoden]

4. Strip Search anyone ? n/t

[Ian David]

6. Unless the porn was made using police uniforms, or while he was on duty, what's the problem? n/t

[Igel]

7. Question:

A 3-judge panel heard the case.

Was the decision unanimous or split 2-1? If unanimous, who were the other two judges? If split, who was the other judge voting with Fernandez?

After all, this "hypocritical, anti-Constitution, pseudo-Christian prick" wasn't a majority all by himself. Unless, of course, he Imperiused the other judge(s), in which case we have a far larger problem.

[Roland99]

8. It's been the slow and steady stacking of the judiciary with the *real* activist judges.

BTW, I erred in the OP...he was appointed by Poppy.